But screw your courage to the sticking-place,
And we'll not fail. When Duncan is asleep –
Whereto the rather shall his day's hard journey
Soundly invite him – his two chamberlains
Will I with wine and wassail so convince
That memory, the warder of the brain,
Shall be a fume, and the receipt of reason
A limbeck only: when in swinish sleep
Their drenchèd natures lied as in a death,
What cannot you and I perform upon
The unguarded Duncan? What not put upon
His spongy officers, who shall bear the guilt
Of our great quell?

Crime is a breach of legally established rules, placed in order to prevent wrongful actions of person(s) that cause damage to others. Criminal action is essentially a violation of established legal norms designed to prevent harm, for instance, to individuals and society as a whole.

Despite these norms and the punishment that befalls anyone who breaches them, crime is an omnipresent reality.

Responsibility for rule violation presupposes wrongfulness and wrongfulness, in turn, presupposes that wrongfulness can be attributed to a particular actor. Any wrongful action has two main elements - the physical act, i.e., the actus reus and the mental element, i.e., the mens rea.

To illustrate, we should consider the quoted text above. It reveals Lady Macbeth's callous disregard for King Duncan's life. Despite her husband's hesitations, Lady Macbeth actively plans to murder Duncan and frame his servants for the crime, all in an effort to secure the throne for her husband. Not only does she play a functional role in convincing her husband to commit the offence, but also aids in the murder and frames the innocent servants. These actions confirm Lady Macbeth's culpability as they leave no room for any doubt as to her guilty mind, and also establish her wrongful actions.


Actus Reus
The term, "actus reus", translates to guilty act since 'actus' means 'act' and 'reus' translates to 'guilty'.

The importance of actus reus is paramount because for successful conviction and further prosecution, it is necessary that the existence of the incriminating act is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Act and Actor
Over time, multiple definitions of actus reus have been provided, which indicates the existence of multiple conflicting opinions. Therefore, as Joshua Dressler lucidly declares in Understanding Criminal Law, there is no single widely accepted definition of criminal law.

In fact, the only thing which penal scholars and theorists unanimously accord with each other on, in this regard, is that there must be an act, and of course, an actor. The actor is responsible for the occurrence or non-occurrence of the event.

When talking about the 'actor', it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is reasonably plausible to blame said person for the act committed. In any case, there may be multiple suspects, however, the one whose actions gave rise to the proximate cause that ultimately led to the victim's suffering is the person who may be proved to have committed the incriminating act.

When we talk about an act, it is generally indicative of the action that ultimately led to the suffering of the victim.

According to John Austin, the only actions that can be properly described as 'acts' are movements of muscles by some voluntary desire of the actor. Such movement must be caused by some force that was knowingly and willingly applied. Therefore, a voluntary application of force, i.e., some degree of strength, using one's muscles in order to perform an action intended to achieve a particular goal, because every action we undertake is done for a certain purpose.

To illustrate, let's consider a person who has Tourette syndrome may make certain sounds repeatedly, however, since such action is involuntary, it cannot be classified as an 'act', legally speaking.

However, if someone shoots another person and he does so voluntarily, naturally his actions are also produced from an intention to commit such an act, thus, his action of shooting another person can be classified as an 'act'. However, if such action occurs involuntarily, it absolves any criminal liability that may derive directly from the bodily movement(s).

Therefore, as is described in Gilbert Law Summaries, Criminal Law, actus reus is understood as an affirmative act or occasionally an omission or failure to act, is necessary for the constitution of a crime. Mere thoughts are not enough.

For instance, if someone desires the death of another, by his own hand or by some other means, cannot be prosecuted since there is no actus reus. Thoughts alone are not culpable.

Omission
"An act or omission prohibited by law for the protection of the public, the violation of which is prosecuted by the state and punishable by fine, incarceration, and / or other restriction of liberty."

This definition, inter alia, mentions that for successful prosecution, there needs to be either an 'act' or an 'omission'. However, the dilemma is how can someone be held liable for something they didn't do? Certainly, no one can be held liable for an omission per se, however, an omission can be or has the potential to be a constituent element of a crime and can lead to liability for an offence.

To illustrate, if the defendant were responsible for a young child, whom they didn't feed and such lack of required nutrition led to the child's death, it is impossible to identify an action of the defendant's that led to the ultimate result, i.e., death. However, it is plausible that the death was caused by something that the defendant didn't do, but ought to have done. As it is apparent, the death was caused by the omission of the defendant, i.e., them not feeding their child in the way that they were supposed to.

In this example, since there is no action which may be considered the proximate cause of the death, we must consider the omission made by the defendant and whether such omission was something that involved them violating a legal duty placed upon them.

However, there is another potential scenario where there was action, but for some reason, it is not possible to find liability for that action. In such a case, it is appropriate to focus on the defendant's omission(s).

Let us consider the case, R v. Kennedy (No.2) [2007] UKHL 38. Here, the victim K lived in a hostel with B, the deceased. While B was drinking with his roommate, C, in his room, K went to him and requested him to supply him with something that would do "a bit to help him sleep". Consequently, K told B to see to it that he did not end up in a permanent sleep. K handed B a syringe of heroin ready for injection and thereafter, B injected himself, returned the empty syringe to K and K left the room.

Subsequently, B apparently asphyxiated. An ambulance was called, however, B was pronounced dead at the hospital, the cause being "the inhalation of gastric contents while acutely intoxicated by opiates and alcohol". K was charged with supplying A with drugs and manslaughter and was convicted of both offences.

Here, one may focus on the action of the defendant, i.e., the supply of drugs. This was the culpable action which apparently contributed to the victim's death. However, such an approach is incorrect since the victim, subsequently, willingly administered the drugs to himself, and therefore, liability cannot be constructed for K's action because the voluntary self-administration breaks the chain of causation.

Additionally, it was established that merely supplying the drugs was insufficient as cause of liability for manslaughter, because while drugs are inherently harmful and their supply, illegal, when taken in an appropriate amount, their consumption would not have led to death. Therefore, it was understood that a manslaughter conviction cannot be based on supply of drugs alone.

However, in the case of R v Evans - 2009, where Evas purchased heroin and supplied it to her half-sister who later self-ingested the drug, Evans recognised the symptoms akin to those of an overdose in the victim. However, she did not act to get the victim required medical assistance for fear of incarceration. The victim was checked on multiple times throughout the evening and the following morning, turned out to be dead. The cause of death was discovered to be heroin.

Here, it was inappropriate to focus on the supply of drugs since there was no chain of causation as previously established. Nonetheless, it was established that since Evans supplied the drugs to her half-sister, it created a duty of care on her part. Since the defendant failed to call an ambulance, it is her omission that generates liability.

Another case could be the case of Miller, where D fell asleep inside a derelict house in which he was squatting. He awoke and discovered that he had, inadvertently, by his cigarette, lit his mattress on fire. Upon finding nothing to put the fire out with, D decided to leave the mattress burning and moved to another room. Consequently, the fire spread and caused much damage to the house. Later, he was charged with arson because while he may not have had the intention to commit arson when the fire started, he developed that mens rea subsequently, when he left the burning mattress callously. Hence, the court adjudged him in terms of his culpable omission.

In such cases, it must be ensured that the offence the defendant is being charged with is one capable of being committed by an omission.

More importantly, however, it must be established that the defendant had a duty to act in some way. Such as in the case of Evans, since the defendant contributed to the creation of the dangerous situation for the victim, she had a duty to act to prevent harm from coming to the victim. Lastly, for conviction, there must necessarily be a breach of the duty to act.

However, if not for the omission, the question arises, what should the defendant have done? The answer in general, is 'reasonable conduct' for the circumstances present at that time. What is reasonable conduct is rather circumstantial. It is the failure of the defendant to act in that reasonable manner that establishes guilt.


Therefore, a parson may held criminally liable for omission, if he/she, owed the duty of care to the plaintiff, in individual capacity fails to complete his/her duty that was either imposed by a statute or by law or by relation of the defendant to the victim wherein a duty of care to act was placed upon the defendant or where the defendant had assumed a contractual duty of care.

Proximate Cause
A proximate cause is the main cause that ultimately led to the damage which was attributed to a particular crime. For the purpose of identifying such a cause, it must be determined that the cause was what, unabated and uninterrupted, led to the damage being caused.

Certainly, it is possible that there could be single or multiple intervening events from the time of the enactment of a particular cause and the occurrence of the incriminating damage, however, if it is established that the damage was indeed caused by a particular cause with the chain of causation being unbroken, then that cause becomes the proximate cause.

For instance, should D stab V causing the death of V, D's act of stabbing V was the proximate cause of the death, and hence, D, as the agent or perpetrator of that action can be held liable for murder if his willing involvement is established further.

For instance, in the case of Niranjan Singh vs The State (Delhi Administration), the accused pleaded not guilty to charges of driving a bus in a reckless and negligent manner, but the Trial Court and appellate Court concluded that he was responsible for the accident.

The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no legal evidence to prove he was negligent in driving a bus and was the proximate cause of the deceased's death. They argued that the trial and appellate court's conviction grounds were insufficient and lacked genuine truth-seeking.

The Courts found that the accused was driving an excessively fast bus at the time of the incident, which led to the death of Badal Chandra Dass. The accused had no knowledge of the incident until the alarm was raised, and even after the alarm was raised, he could stop the bus at a distance of 30/40 paces from the spot. Both courts failed to determine if the alleged rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death.

The main criterion for determining if the driving was rash and negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but also the deliberate disregard for the driver's obligation to drive with due care and attention. The test is whether the prosecution has proved that the accused was driving in a manner that created a serious risk of injury or property damage.

The Indian Penal Code requires a direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused to impose criminal liability. The court failed to consider the actual cause of the deceased's fall from a moving bus, as none of the prosecution witnesses stated. The petitioner's counsel argued that the deceased may have fallen down while alighting from the moving bus, but the court found sufficient assurance from his testimony.

The court found that the direct or proximate cause of the accident was the deceased's own act. The court's findings were not supported by any evidence, and the petitioner's conviction under Sections 279/304-A, I.P.C., was declared as 'cannot be maintained'.

Social Harm:
Criminal activity of any kind tends to have a profound social impact. This is why when a crime is committed, it is not only perpetrated against the direct victim, but in general, affects the entire society.

Hence why, in criminal cases, the State takes on the responsibility to prosecute for the alleged crime, which is why the name of the state is present in the case.

Consider a situation where there is a murderer at a shop in a natural social setting. Naturally people would be wary of and fear him. However, their reaction would not be the same if they were standing next to someone who, for instance, breached a contract or trespassed upon someone's land. This proves that crimes have a social impact upon people in general and therefore, this logical posteriori can be used to determine whether the conduct or act committed was, in fact, criminal or not.

Certainly, something that impacts society need not always be a crime, however, a crime must always have some effect on society, otherwise, there remains little sense in the state defending the victim and prosecuting the defendant.

Hence, actus reus can be defined as:
"A willing action or omission able to be classified as an act, that, in the natural course of action, causes damage to the victim(s) alone, as well as, to society at large, and is in violation of the law."

Also Read:

• Actus Reus: Importance in Criminal Law
• Definition Of Crime And Elements Of Crime: Actus Reus And Mens Rea
• IPC 1860 General Principals Of Criminal Liability: Actus Reus And Mens Rea